General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHas Has Senator Warren said anything about the Discrimination law passed in Indiana?
It's been widely reported and that many prominent Democrats have spoken in support of the LGBT community over this terrible law that has been passed. National companies & celebrities have threatened to withhold donations & contracts to the plus boycott the State of Indiana if repunlicans continues to publicly assault the LGBT community in this manner.
I've not seen any comments from Senator Warren on this matter. A Google search came up empty.
I would hope that any good Democrat would be outraged. Does anyone have any links to statements from Senator Warren on this matter?
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)William769
(55,148 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)NBachers
(17,170 posts)William769
(55,148 posts)NBachers
(17,170 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)other position of substance...i.e. presidential material...missing.
Yes, she is Progressive as far as corporate money is concerned. Yes, she is Charismatic. But, no, as she is short on any other matters of substance on which Hillary has been criticized and pillloried. If she and her supporters want her to be a Viable Candidate, she must at least comment on something other than the Corporate Debacle...which is real, but hardly the total realm or reach of Presidential Politics for the long haul.
Plus, she says she's not running and supports Hillary. I mean, really, what's left to parse here?
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)greatauntoftriplets
(175,766 posts)William769
(55,148 posts)Hillary is just a private citizen right now & she came out in Support of the LGBT community, Women & minorities that could be affected by this law.
greatauntoftriplets
(175,766 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)unless it's income equality.
Civil right just don't seem that important to them.
Sid
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)I wouldn't go quite that far but some folks seem to lack the ability to focus on more than one thing at a time.
JI7
(89,283 posts)BainsBane
(53,112 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)And marks them as "one issue" voters and not to be listened to.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Just look at this thread, about civil rights and Indiana, and we see 'But what about the TPP?' whining.
Civil rights and equality may not be important to you, but it is to those without your privilege.
Sid
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... ri-fucking-diculous.
True to form, always.
William769
(55,148 posts)Tough love is tough for a reason.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)I'll leave that to the clowns.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)into an attack on her supporters. Typical DU.
Thanks for reminding me why I don't come around here much Sid. If you feel the need to stalk me I'm over at C&L quite a bit. Using that old name...
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)To make some claim about some Democrat, and then go after anyone who supports that Democrat.
I come here less often, as well.
sheshe2
(84,005 posts)Thanks Sid.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)surely she is as against the law as the rest of us, I say that not as sarcasm.
Weird
But yes Sid, white, privileged, alleged liberals who are really libertarians, dont care about civil rights because they already have theirs
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)And that's why I look at them as a bunch of ridiculous opiners - and nothing more. Fair-weather Democratic voters, as well, because they'd hop on the Rand Paul wagon the moment they can without being seen as the Libertarians they really are in heart and soul - and enemies of equal rights and equal justice under our laws.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)that effect a very small percentage of Americans, but so hard to get them to boycott over issues that harm the overwhelming majority of Americans. Like where were they during the first recall against Scott Walker?
I am pretty sure Warren has no problem with this boycott but I am also sure that the economic conservative, social liberals, don't give a crap about the non-wealthy.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)overwhelming majority of Americans?
Why can't Warren open that famously adept mouth and speak against this?
closeupready
(29,503 posts)When a vote is anonymous, we see Hollywood for the vile, conservative morass it is.
DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)It is not the working class vs. LGBT people, it is both of us and the other oppressed peoples of the world against the oppressors. They want us to be divided, to fight, but we'll never get anything we deserve unless we fight together.
BainsBane
(53,112 posts)"not a very small percentage of people." Your comment is entirely offensive to me, and I'm straight.
You just made clear you don't give a shit about the "very small percentage of Americans." If it's not about you, as in straight, white men, it just doesn't matter. And you have the nerve to call others conservative? I can think of little more conservative that deciding basic civil rights are unimportant. The Tea baggers care about their pocket books too. It doesn't make them leftist.
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)n/t
BainsBane
(53,112 posts)or reactionary.
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)of the poor and middle class by pretending that is the same as being antigay. If you are playing that game too, you're a reactionary as well.
I am not going to apologize for an offense you made up.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)And sadly, he is far from alone around here.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Nailed it.
Sid
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)long and extremely definitive years. She has said that her former support for utterly heinous policies was purely about the markets, which I find to be a very dubious standard.
This was certainly an opportunity for her to make her position clear. Perhaps that's what she did.
William769
(55,148 posts)JustAnotherGen
(32,001 posts)And that's all I have to say 'bout that.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)No doubt, she thinks the law's a fine idea.
dsc
(52,172 posts)Both of them came out in support in 2012, given that my definition of many would be more than 2, can you give any statement in 2009 from her. Heck I'll take any from before she decided to run for Senate.
William769
(55,148 posts)Birds of a feather.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)would not have been likely to have been recorded.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)So apparently she was at least a bit ahead of the curve. And HRC was still equivocating for a while afterwards.
dsc
(52,172 posts)Obama changed his mind in May of 2012, I know because he did so on the day I was traveling home to see my dad for the last time. Manny said several years, that is two months.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)that time.
If you can find a place where she, like Obama and Hillary, 'evolved' on the issue, let me know. As far back as I can see she's been a consistent supporter of marriage equality, etc.
dsc
(52,172 posts)Manny said, she was for gay marriage, years before either Clinton or Obama, it is up to him to do his homework not me, or for that matter you.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)She never held contradictory positions, unlike HRC who actually RAN on being against Marriage equality in 2008.
Why is it up to Elizabeth Warren or her supporters to justify... whatever, instead of someone with a documented history of flip-flopping on it, like Hillary?
Oh, right, because she's a hypothetical roadblock on the inevitability highway, and that's all that really matters, yo.
dsc
(52,172 posts)so she sure as Hell didn't favor marriage equality or any other gay rights for that matter back then.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)derp derp
dsc
(52,172 posts)the voting age in 64 was 21 and she wasn't even 18 yet. You might want to buy a calculator. She basically was a kid who followed her parents, Warren voted for Reagan and Bush and God alone knows what Texas Republicans as an adult law professor surrounded by liberals as college faculties nearly always are.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)seriously, Liz Warren is a good democrat. As is Hillary Clinton. A vigorous primary contest is good for everyone, including the eventual nominee. I really don't understand what Hillary's supporters think they're accomplishing by acting as if the primaries are already over, or else an annoying technicality.
She's not the nominee yet. Maybe she will be. Hell, maybe I'll vote for her in the primaries, even.
But if I do, it'll be because her campaign has convinced me that she's right on the issues, not because she's the most inevitable inevitable-est since inevitably inevitable-ing even more inevitable since last inevitability this time with extra inevitabilitude.
dsc
(52,172 posts)I have a problem with double standards. Kerry did exactly what she did and some of his biggest supporters are saying she is unacceptable for doing what he did. That is a problem. On edit this was written before I read your post admitting you changed your mind. I think an honest change of mind is fair.
William769
(55,148 posts)"Hillary's supporters think they're accomplishing by acting as if the primaries are already over" it's not Hillary supporters saying that it's seems to be everyone else. I damn sure haven't said it.
We are also not the one's pushing the meme "the Queens coronation" we keep getting accused of what other people are saying and when other people get called on it they get upset. Well guess what? They are just going to have to live with it.
I for one am not going to sit idly by & let some get passes when others are being burned in effigy.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)If someone says they wont vote for the nominee, they're an ass, but filliing in the blank any further than that is pointless 15 months out.
In the meantime, she is going to be criticized as would anyone else running in the primaries, because we as a party have differences of opinion on a variety of issues, as well as what is important- the folks objecting to what they perceieve as excessive corporate centrism, 'third way", or what have you... Those differences arent going to go away and to expect that they wont play out in the primaries is facile. Actually, hashing that shit out, from where I sit, is a GOOD thing- which brings me back to my point about a vigorous primary season.
And no, before you mention it, LGBT rights and equality should NOT be an issue on which there is "difference of opinion", nor should it be an area of considered "lesser" importance. I fully admit that I dont completely understand making someone who so obviously until recently played some political pandering games with her position on the matter before belatedly coming around to supporting marriage equality, the supposed standard-bearer for those rights--
But beyond that I dont think it is terribly fair- or even particulalry politically astute- to try to paint the "liz warren wing" as somehow insufficiently committed to LGBT rights.
But likewise, trying to paint people who object to things like Hillary's IWR vote as closet Republicans or just disgruntled Hillary-haters acting from "contempt"- again, it's not doing her team any favors, here.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/hillary-worked-for-goldwater/
Hillary Clinton ("Living History," page 21):"I was also an active Young Republican and, later, a Goldwater girl, right down to my cowgirl outfit and straw cowboy hat emblazoned with the slogan "AuH20." I liked Senator Goldwater because he was a rugged individualist who swam against the political tide."
And before finally becoming a member of the Democratic party, she interned and worked for both Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller -- Republicans.
dsc
(52,172 posts)but she sure as hell didn't vote for him. My point being that she was too young to do so.
William769
(55,148 posts)Trying to deflect from the OP I see.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)sheshe2
(84,005 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)Elizabeth Warren supported Richard Milhous Nixon in both elections
derp derp
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)what's with the abject panic at the thought that someone might interfere with the inevitability train..... again?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)I refrain from browbeating folks into voting for the candidate of my choice...I belong to the "people will do what people will do" camp.
CTyankee
(63,926 posts)her evolution as a Democrat. She came a long way from Oklahoma and lays it out very honestly in this book. If you want to understand her, you must read this book where she talks to the reader in her own terms and quite forthrightly. You will have your questions answered by her.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)You've been fed misinformation.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)despite being a Goldwater girl, she wasn't old enough to vote for the guy.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)But I don't think it makes sense to go after Hillary for being a "Goldwater girl"....especially when Elizabeth Warren was voting Republican well into her 40's. She supported Reagan when he was cracking jokes about gays dying from AIDS.
Hillary was a teenager when Goldwater was running for President. I don't think she ever voted for a Republican.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Goldwater Girl. Promise.
I was reflecting on the absurdity of going back to Warren's voting for Reagan, or whatever. And no, you don't have to remind me how wonderful the Reagan years were, either. I cut my teeth as a political activist during those years.
A few things, one, Warren probably won't run, so pre-emptively going after her is a waste of time, not that wasting time ever stopped anyone on DU. But if she does, all the better for the party. She clearly has energized people and articulated issues which many felt have not been adequately addressed by other portions of the leadership. Either way, whoever she voted for in the 80s, we're lucky to have her now.
I also don't think that Hillary's IWR vote is anything like bringing up Warren's former Republicanism. The IWR vote is part of Hillary's record of governance, so it speaks directly to her arguments that she should be president. As I said in my other post, I don't think it's a dealbreaker anymore, but I do think her supporters shouldn't be shocked and dismayed that it's going to come up. It will.
Lastly, and this is something maybe people don't grok- I like Hillary Clinton. I like both Clintons. I stood with 60,000 other people at the Daley Center on a sunny day in October of '92, to cheer for those two, and Al and Tipper. It was one of the most inspirational days of my life, and whatever Liz Warren was doing at the time, personally I was more than ready for 12 years of Reagan-Bush to be over.
So if Hillary wants to be the nominee this time, great- but she'll need to earn it, like anyone else. And she is probably going to need to (or want to) unite the party-- my word to the wise to her supporters, at this early stage in the game, is not to treat everyone who questions or even criticizes her as an enemy, or the equivalent of a Nader supporter circa 2000. And DU in general is probably going to want to pace ourselves- I mean, it's only March of 2015.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The public record is that Warren was a registered Republican at one point. From that, people who dislike her say that she therefore voted for Republicans (all Republican candidates for all offices, apparently, because I've never seen any distinctions drawn) and that she therefore supported Republican policies (all policies of all Republican candidates, apparently, because again I've never seen any distinctions drawn).
Do you have any evidence for any fact other than her party registration?
As for favoring marriage equality, I personally voted for Bill Clinton's re-election even though I disagreed with his signing of DOMA. Is it your view that anyone who voted for Clinton in 1996, indeed anyone who was a registered Democrat as of that time, didn't favor marriage equality?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)It would have been strange to make a public pronouncement on the subject prior to being a public person, I think, unless she was asked (and I haven't seen evidence that she was).
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)There's never been a statement by Warren against same-sex marriage.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Hillary was SOS so she couldn't give political statements till after office.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Thanks in advance.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)You're welcome.
dsc
(52,172 posts)Hillary endorsed marriage equality in March of 2013 while Warren did so in December of 2011, that is a year and three months, last I checked that isn't a year and a half.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)refused Repuke requests to fire him. She has always been pro-gay.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Love her and trust her.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)"marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time and I think a marriage is, as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman." Hillary Clinton (2000).
You can continue to lie to yourself....
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Howard Dean, did not publicly approve of equal marriage 15 years ago.
William769
(55,148 posts)Well of course we will! http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/03/18/how-hillary-clinton-evolved-on-gay-marriage/
there is a lot more to Gay civil rights than just Gay marriage, but I am pretty sure you already knew that.
dsc
(52,172 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)And Warren took a public stand very soon after entering her first public race - it would have been strange for her to take a public stance before becoming a candidate (unless specifically asked).
dsc
(52,172 posts)Hilary not taking a stand as SOS, a position which has historically never taken positions on domestic issues, is a problem but Warren who was a private citizen would have been strange to take a position. Now just how isn't this a double standard? But the point remains you used the word years and the word Obama so I am still waiting for you to give a citation to back that up. You don't even have years before Clinton since she announced her support in March of 2013 a mere 46 days after stepping down as SOS a position that required her not to address domestic issues.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)You're going to go with that? Seriously?
I wrote "public stance". Maybe you publish all of your stances, all of the time, but most private people don't.
And finally... what part of "my bad" do you not understand. I took responsibility for my screw up.
dsc
(52,172 posts)Name one, just one statement on any domestic issue that Kerry has made as SOS. He has been that for over a year now.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)that Hillary herself made as SoS? I'm heading out now for a while, I look forward to seeing a remunerative response when I return.
dsc
(52,172 posts)that is my point. She wasn't going around making pronouncements on taxes, or civil rights, or anything else that is purely domestic. She was doing her job. Kerry wasn't on TV talking about the Mike Brown shooting nor should he have been.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Additional examples, if you'd like them, will be charged at $100 each. (You couldn't have googled this yourself?)
dsc
(52,172 posts)once SCOTUS decides it is done, or at least that is how it used to be. That said, she was asked and responded which is different from issuing statements, especially ones that went against admin policy as a pro marriage statement would have for the majority of her tenure.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Why do you think Hillary was not on the campaign trail in 2012?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Not the same thing.
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)She was vocal about same sex marriage.
Elizabeth Warren to Obama: Evolve already
By BYRON TAU | 3/22/12 2:04 PM EDT
Massachusetts Senate candidate and former interim head of the consumer bureau Elizabeth Warren says in an interview with the Washington Blade that President Obama needs to evolve already on the issue of same-sex marriage:
Asked whether she wants Obama to finish evolving and support same-sex marriage, Warren chuckled and responded that was indeed her view.
I want to see the president evolve because I believe that is right; marriage equality is morally right, Warren said.
Warren expressed similar sentiments about the Democratic Party platform, saying it would build support for ending the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act.
Id be glad to see it included in the Democratic platform, she said. It helps raise awareness of the impact of DOMA and it helps build support to repeal it.
Still, it's easier for Warren to be out in front of Obama on gay marriage, running for Senate in a blue state where 60 percent of residents say gay marriage should remain legal. But it's a question that has divided liberal and progressive activists over whether the president should risk a political backlash by endorsing gay marriage before the election but all seem convinced that Obama will ultimately come down on the side of marriage equality. http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/03/elizabeth-warren-to-obama-evolve-already-118346.html
William769
(55,148 posts)But it's now that we are trying to fight these shitty laws.
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)couple days ago in NC legislature. I tweeted Tim Cook( we have an Apple data center here) , Keith Olbermann and everybody else I could think of to put pressure on them. Our legislature isn't representative of the voters due to gerrymandering. Despite what you've heard about NC , it won't be popular , if it passes. I hope they see what's happening in Indiana and and call it off. They're all owned by corporations so maybe if even businesses threaten to leave the state that will have some influence.
William769
(55,148 posts)We take one step forward & get knocked back 5.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Asked whether she wants Obama to finish evolving and support same-sex marriage, Warren chuckled and responded that was indeed her view.
I want to see the president evolve because I believe that is right; marriage equality is morally right, Warren said.
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/03/elizabeth-warren-to-obama-evolve-already-118346.html
William769
(55,148 posts)But what about now?
Zorra
(27,670 posts)The points are, she's not a homophobe, and she's not running for President, so why are you singling her out on this?
Where is Al Franken's statement? Where is Diane Feinstein's statement? Where is Barbara Boxer's statement?
Where is Harry Reid's statement? Chuck Schumer? Nancy Pelosi?
William769
(55,148 posts)It's my way of saying I'm mad as hell over this shit and I'm not going to take it anymore. If Warren supporters think this is going to be a one way street, they are sadly mistaken.
Once again She has been awfully quiet and I would like to know why.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)I was thinking, maybe it might be because she's currently under attack by the most wealthy and powerful institutions on the planet?
Elizabeth Warren Fires Back After Wall Street Threats
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/27/elizabeth-warren-wall-street-donations_n_6959228.html
I would like to hear her issue a statement also. Maybe she will after the smoke clears.
William769
(55,148 posts)Sorry.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Thanks in advance.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts). . . that didn't even exist, do you think the majority of people here would think she was running?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)That being said my concern is that some folks are fixated on the 1%/99% dichotomy to the exclusion of every other issue.
sheshe2
(84,005 posts)So, I may have missed it. Wait, no just Googled, nary a peep. Hmmm~
William769
(55,148 posts)brooklynite
(94,916 posts)Hillary Clinton ✔ @HillaryClinton
Follow
Sad this new Indiana law can happen in America today. We shouldn't discriminate against ppl bc of who they love #LGBT http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/26/indiana-governor-mike-pence-anti-gay-bill_n_6947472.html
William769
(55,148 posts)joshcryer
(62,287 posts)Prefect.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Hopefully this bodes well for her running a campaign on more than just shitty country music songs and "my most inspirational bible verse".
Maybe we can find out where she sits on the CARERS act, but I won't hold my breath.
paleotn
(18,003 posts)She hasn't said anything publicly yet! That must prove she's a closeted homophobic theocrat!
And exactly how many of the 188 Democratic Congress members, 44 Democratic and 2 independent Senators have or have not made a public statement on Indiana's egregious, theocratic stupidity?
William769
(55,148 posts)So here's to you with
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)William769
(55,148 posts)paleotn
(18,003 posts)paleotn
(18,003 posts)William769
(55,148 posts)paleotn
(18,003 posts)joshcryer
(62,287 posts)It takes her around week to opine about social issues.
William769
(55,148 posts)joshcryer
(62,287 posts)Though Clinton took longer than Warren to say anything. (And, of course, Clinton took a far bolder stance.)
It's a mixed bag, good that Clinton is addressing important issues immediately now, the twiddling of thumbs is annoying. I guess it tells us who's running and who isn't.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)http://www.washingtonblade.com/2012/03/21/exclusive-elizabeth-warren-pledges-to-lead-on-lgbt-rights/
Unlike some other people
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/hillary-clintons-gay-marriage-problem/372717/
William769
(55,148 posts)Oh wait, we know why.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)to anything regarding hypothetical Presidential Candidate Clinton 2016.
William769
(55,148 posts)Yes I really like her as a Hypothetical in 2016.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I haven't made up my mind who I will support in the primaries- which, last I checked, have not been cancelled- however, the panicked desperation on the part of some of her erstwhile supporters to make sure she isn't "robbed" of her inevitability this time, is simply weak.
If she's the best, strongest candidate, GREAT. Then she'll win easy. Fucking awesome for everyone.
But the people who support Liz Warren (or anyone else from our party) are on the same team. Warren probably won't even run, so the point of the desperate "stop it before it starts" crap just eludes me.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)...while in the next breath, do their best to minimize, dismiss, ignore, avoid, or be indifferent or even antagonistic to core Democratic constituencies and their issues. Like equality. Like civil rights. Like discrimination. Want evidence? Just ask the many women, persons of color, or members of the LGBT community who have experienced-and continue to experience-the disdain and dismissals and even outright bigotry.
Pardon me if I don't think said people are nearly as "principled" as they say they are.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)As well it should be.
To try to argue that somehow "the warren wing" is less committed to marriage equality than team Hillary, who only evolved on the position this last election cycle- it's simply too ludicrous a piece of gibberish to even bother with.
It's just something someone here made up because the actual political divisions out in actual reality don't break down in any way that fits into whatever silly narrative is trying to be promoted.
paleotn
(18,003 posts)....she's a closeted Rethuglican theocratic! Everything she's ever said on the issue of LGBT rights is just a smokescreen for her REAL agenda!!
obxhead
(8,434 posts)Where does Clinton stand on trade deals, war, banking reform, etc?
Chan790
(20,176 posts)they don't care what she believes in or does as President as long as Hillary gets elected. DU has a lot of those Clintonites. They're worse then the GOP. At least the GOP doesn't pretend to believe in or support Democratic values.
Hillary's army of sycophants only believe in and support what Hillary tells them they do. If she wanted to put LGBTQ Americans into reeducation camps, empower Wall St. firms to engage in indentured servitude over the American public, bomb Switzerland for the hell of it, cut tax rates for earners over $250,000 to 0%, and engage in anti-competitive trade practices at the expense of the American worker...their ilk couldn't tell you fast enough that those were Democratic values.
They have no values. They're not worth sharing a party with. They're morally-and-economically-bankrupt.
840high
(17,196 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)This is supposed to force me into liking Hillary Goldman Sachs Clinton.
Got it.
Here's your bucket of fail.
Thanks for playing.
paleotn
(18,003 posts)William769
(55,148 posts)All I asked for if she made a statement on this and apparently she has not. Got it.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Isn't that special?
William769
(55,148 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)Last edited Sun Mar 29, 2015, 09:18 AM - Edit history (2)
You sure have a great handle on making friends and influencing people. How can the Hillary Machine lose with wonderful attractive folks like you helping out?
elias7
(4,035 posts)She's currently going toe to toe with Wall Street, and I'll cede her a little ground so that she can keep her eye on the ball. Are you now disillusioned? I'm confused with what you are really asking...
William769
(55,148 posts)Because it's not convenient for them at the time? Is that what you are saying?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)That kind of pass?
I have no doubt Senator Warren is appalled by the Indiana legislation. The premise of your OP, here, is exceedingly lame.
William769
(55,148 posts)If you want to go back in time it was Mrs. Warren that voted for Reagan & not Hillary. Just satin.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Neil Young voted for Reagan, too. People make mistakes, I'm sure LW would characterize voting for Reagan as a 'mistake'.
Goldwater Girl HRC never characterized voting for Bush's Iraq clusterfuck as one, did she?
dsc
(52,172 posts)as long as you are consistent in doing so. Did you have the same problem with Kerry in 04? Did you support anyone who was Kucinich or Dean in 04? But I will say her votes for Reagan and Bush do trouble me and I think I have every earthly right to be so troubled. There are literally no gay men my age who didn't lose friends to AIDS which Reagan totally ignored and Bush mostly ignored.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I supported Kerry in the primaries in '04, in particular because I thought he was the sensible choice, that his war hero record would innoculate our party from charges of being "soft on terror". In short, I was buying into the same sort of beltway conventional wisdom bs at the time that I suspect led HRC (and other Democrats, to be sure) to vote for that turd even though I know they knew it was predicated on lies, etc.
I was wrong, and after that election I came to the conclusion that we absolutely SHOULD have run someome who would have been able to speak with moral clarity about Iraq. Maybe we would have lost anyway, but we should have tried. At the very least it would have provided the public with a more stark and unavoidable choice regarding endorsing Bush's policies for another 4 years.
After that, no- i felt in 2008 that nominating someone who voted for the IWR was a bad idea, and at the very least the vote should be repudiated by our candidate, something Hillary never did. i would have had similar problems with Biden, etc. as nom.
At this point the IWR is not a dealbreaker for me, but i will be damned if I am going to forget about it or,even worse, accept some folks' assertion that the vote was an indication of shrewd political ability and as such a badge of honor. It is not.
If Liz Warren runs, which she probably won't, I wouldnt be surprised if people did ask her why she supported Reagan. That, too, is a legitimate question.
BainsBane
(53,112 posts)They will actively promote people like Kerry and Biden who voted for the war, demonstrating their contempt for Clinton has nothing to do with the war.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)likewise responding to me - you are flat out, 100% incorrect, and furthermore ignoring several exchanges we have had where I told you explicitly that you are incorrect on that point.
If Biden runs he should be subject to the exact same scrutiny on the IWR vote that Hillary is.
I supported Kerry in 2004, but I realized after the election that we absolutely should have run someone able to speak from a position of moral clarity on Iraq. Maybe Howard Dean would have lost, too, but at least it would have presented a clear choice on the matter. But I acknowledged I was wrong, which to my knowledge is still not something HRC has done on the subject of the IWR vote.
So, "they" do no such thing. I realize that may not gel with whatever cartoon you've got running around in your head, probably the frothing misogynists whose contempt for Hillary is all about the fact that she's a woman (never mind that Warren is, too, but.. hmmmmm.... no matter) ... also I realize that "they" is plural, but personally I don't have any contempt for Hillary.
On the contrary, I eagerly await her actual campaign so we can start to hear directly from her what her positions and plans are, because fuck-all if her erstwhile support team on DU are doing her any favors right now.
BainsBane
(53,112 posts)and therefore isn't important.
As for only recently being in favor of marriage equality, you can put just about the entire country in that category.
Literally thousands of threads bashing Clinton, but the group think doesn't allow a simple question about Warren.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)but, then, I've always been ahead of my time.
BainsBane
(53,112 posts)Now, That's funny.
As for myself, I just bought a new picture frame for a photo of a lesbian wedding I was a bridesmaid in back around 1990. It was in Texas and obviously not a legal wedding, but no less important for the brides.
Go ahead and provide a list of politicians who came out for marriage equality back then when you were so ahead of the rest of us. You know, back when Liz Warren was supporting Reagan and George H. W.
Having seen your posts on gender issues, your comment is especially ironic. You find feminist ideas from the 1970s too "radical.'' You have always had an excellent sense of humor, but that may be your funniest post yet.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I was at at least one lesbian wedding in the early 90s, myself. Maybe two.
Which was sort of the topic, right?
Not sure what the rest of your post is about, but it's not really relevant. If you're trying to make the case that not being opposed to the sports illustrated swimsuit issue, or disagreeing with "progressive" luminaries like Ed Meese, Rick Santorum, or the American Family Association on topics of free expression and nudity makes one a reactionary, that particular piece of swiss cheese logic fail has been repeatedly taken apart on DU over the years...
Now, I"m totes psyched to have that argument (again) but ....this thread probably isnt the place for it.
BainsBane
(53,112 posts)Can your bullshit equating feminism with the moral majority. It's not remotely convincing. I'm bored with your inane, reactionary dribble. Among other things, it's dishonest. Yet it is what you always do in order to justify your 1950s worldview.
It is interesting you invoke the right so often as a way to discredit basic feminism when they share your disdain for it. You really ought to stick to the girly mags that you and the likes of Rush get so much pleasure from. When women write and speak about their rights, you become hopelessly confused.
Predictably, you have no list of politicians who were spoke out for marriage equality in the 80s and 90s, despite your pot shot at Clinton, which you inexplicably thought served as a defense of Warren, who during that time period was supporting Reagan and his policy of allowing viral genocide of gay men. There is a reason so many LGBT members of this site, and gay men in particular, support Clinton over Warren. That of course incurs great wrath around here, leading to idiotic insults that their concern for their civil rights amounts to an alliance with the 1 percent. This from people who pretty obviously have more money and privilege than the most can ever imagine.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)position in post #136:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6431446
No matter how many times you try to spin being anti-censorship as "reactionary", it isn't. You can call it orange and smelly, too, and that is equally meaningless. But again, particularly in light of goofy ad hominem nonsense like the above linked post, you aren't really in a position of expertise on honesty.
As far as whatever cartoon caricature you have created, it isn't me, and I would advise you to stop letting him live in your head rent-free-- particularly since he agitates you so profoundly....
but you wouldn't take my advice anyway, wouldja.
BainsBane
(53,112 posts)Last edited Tue Mar 31, 2015, 03:12 AM - Edit history (1)
and a deliberately false straw man. In fact it is a blatant lie that you have repeatedly been confronted on. I don't know whether it's because you are simply incapable of dealing with arguments above the most basic level or you are desperate to justify yourself, but either way, it's your problem. You long ago passed my boredom threshold with that bullshit.
I didn't even read past the subject line of your response to my linked post above. There is nothing more tedious than people who insist on making every discussion about themselves. I have no responsibility to cater to your ego.
As for your supposedly living in my head, you overrate your own importance. You don't live anywhere near me, not even in the same century.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I s'pose tedious pomposity is in the eye of the beholder, innit?
elias7
(4,035 posts)this bill was passed literally days ago, and warren has been immersed in committee work that may one day result in you and me getting a fair shake from the banks, the 1%ers, Wall Street-- you're implication is that because she didn't break focus on her work to comment on your pet issue, that this is somehow meaningful.
its an impossible standard, but then, it seems that she's not your cup of tea anyway.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)...so that you can feel sorry for yourself. If Elizabeth Warren has done something to constrain your civil rights, speak up. Otherwise, you're stirring shit and you have nothing. There are real problems in the world, including LBGT people being denied rights. Elizabeth Warren is NOT a part of the problem.
William769
(55,148 posts)Silence kills.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)She's very busy right now being attacked by banks.
To think she should take the time to craft a tweet or a short statement is ridiculous.
I doubt she even has time to take a breath!
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Unless she's quite literally engaged in an actual sword fight with Goldman Sachs ninjas, she's not too busy.
William769
(55,148 posts)Got the answer to my question which is she has not made a statement. Maybe she will in the future when it suits her.
Well I'm off for the evening.
Ya'll have fun now.
totodeinhere
(13,059 posts)is no doubt in my mind where she stands on the issue of LGBT rights. But is she obligated to immediately speak up on each and every issue that comes up? No I don't think she is. She can only do so much. And why single just her out? There are plenty of other Democratic politicians who haven't spoken out on the issue either. And then some others have spoken. Hillary Clinton tweeted about it to her credit.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)William769
(55,148 posts)Cha
(297,935 posts)about wikileaks tpp".. yada yada yada. I mean it was a Definite that he was telling us to all "Fuck Off" over tpp. Cut and Dried.. no ******* wiggle room. He needed to say something.. right fucking now or.. else!
But, if their person hasn't said anything about something important to us.. it's okay. The hypocrisy is ******* Glaring.
Thank you, William
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Consider these two cases:
* What Obama, a federal officeholder, says or does about TPP, a federal issue.
* What Warren, a federal officeholder, says or does about Indiana's RFRA, a state issue.
According to you, the only possible reason to treat these cases differently is hypocrisy, on the part of people who blindly support "their person" and criticize others.
I personally don't want Clinton as our nominee but I didn't join in the attack that she had "only" tweeted about the Indiana law and should have done more. The media in general, and DU in particular, get way too heated up about whether Prominent Person X has said something about Current Controversy Y. Public officials should be evaluated based on what they do about their sphere of responsibility. It's usually a distraction from addressing substantive issues.
Now, if someone wants to propose a specific amendment to the federal RFRA, or, what would be more difficult, possible federal legislation to address issues raised by state RFRA's, that would be a legitimate subject to raise with both Obama and Warren.
Cha
(297,935 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You charge some DUers with hypocrisy based on your assertion that the only difference between two cases is the identity of the politician involved. I point out a sensible basis for the distinction that has nothing to do with such identities. In response, you don't need to bother answering the substance of my argument because... only hypocrites would believe it!
Those of us in the reality-based community don't get to indulge in such self-comforting fallacies.
Cha
(297,935 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Or is your attack on other DUers based solely on name-calling and circular reasoning?
mcar
(42,439 posts)Such a double standard here for those who the "real" Democrats like and dislike.
Saying as someone who admires Senator Professor Warren but is tired of the hypocrisy on this board.
Cha
(297,935 posts)Mahalo mcar!
mcar
(42,439 posts)Cha
(297,935 posts)Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)No No, not yet yet. Although I'm sure she will since she's a very strong supporter of LGBT rights.
TM99
(8,352 posts)I mean she did come out when she entered public office stating she has always been against the beating of husbands. She was well before HRC in stating that. And she had to push Obama to evolve and stop beating his wife.
There are tons of prominent Democrats who have not publicly commented on this. Why the attention on her alone? She has not stated like HRC that she is running for President. She is not the current President? Or are you just shit-stirring?
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)If so, shouldn't it be in the HRC group? It is pretty bizarre to use this to try to take down a democrat.
William769
(55,148 posts)Can you answer the question that the OP is about?
And speaking of trying to take down a Democrat, all those anti Hillary threads that clutter up GD on a Daily basis are just in jest I suppose?
If you only knew what you just posted actually sounded like.
Better luck next time.
840high
(17,196 posts)was in retaliation to asking if Clinton said anything.
William769
(55,148 posts)I just want to make sure I am understanding you correctly.
840high
(17,196 posts)anything you want. I just gave you my impression. Enjoy your week-end.
William769
(55,148 posts)Received loud and clear.
You enjoy your weekend also.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)to protect our rights or to speak up in defense of GLBT people.
Even our own FAMILIES betray us publicly - casting us out, abusing us, neglecting us where they nurture our 'straight' siblings.
I wish EW were more of a GLBT ally (and I believe she is), but we have to fight our struggles ourselves, for better or worse.
William769
(55,148 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)She's great when it comes to financial issues, but when it comes to issues of equality, she's really lacking IMO.
What good is increasing taxes on the wealthy if you're dead via a cop's bullet because of the color of your skin? What good is wall street reform when you can't even enter stores because of your sexual orientation?
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Cha
(297,935 posts)BainsBane
(53,112 posts)It's not like that "very small percentage" is important or anything, not like the straight, white men who actually matter.
And that is what passes as leftism around here? In what fucking universe are civil rights a minor concern?
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)But, you don't hear about the police killing gays in the street like you hear blacks being gunned down, do you?
What really steams me is the idea that Warren has to say something about a law that is only 3 days old!
Or else, she is trashed at DU.
Yet, she has already said she isn't running.
This thread is a perfect example of one-issue voters losing their minds over the coming election.
I expect this to become the norm over the next 8 months or so.
BainsBane
(53,112 posts)It's a question. If she were running for president, she would be expected to address a wide array of issues. Yet people here continue to insist she is running, despite her claiming otherwise.
While African Americans certainly face a whole different level of oppression, I don't think it at all productive to pit one subaltern group against another.
William769
(55,148 posts)Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)of the few criticisms I have about her. She's active and talks a great game in economics, but much of the time, I have no idea where she stands on other issues. I have yet to hear about Warren regarding not only this, but also issues related to minorities, foreign policy, incarceration, gun control, the Drug War, etc. Whenever I hear about her on here or elsewhere, it always has to do with her fiscal agenda. I'm assuming that she probably holds left-leaning views on those issues as well, but it would still be nice to hear from her more often on other issues aside from fiscal policy.
foo_bar
(4,193 posts)Granted you can't become president without taking a bold stand on issues outside your sphere of expertise, but I feel like that's part of the problem. I mean, I wish contenders were allowed to say "I don't know" or "Let me ask somebody who actually studies this shit for a living" instead of having to effect this facade of omniscient jack-of-all-tradesiness.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)You and your cohorts really think attacking Warren helps Clinton. It is your nasty behavior that further distances those who dislike Clinton.
There's no doubt in my mind that she's against this, but you also have no idea what kind of schedule she has as a senator. To presume she is homophobic (and please don't try to say that's not what you were implying) because she doesn't put out a statement immediately to your liking is callous and idiotic behavior.
The real outrage should be over those who throw sissy fits and act like children. If the shoe fits.........
William769
(55,148 posts)What part of it is not truthful? Speaking of hissy fits & children...
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)There are too many people on DU that alert posts for the stupidest reason (If I had chosen to alert it I would have done it long before writing this, so if I haven't by now you know I'm not going to). I would rather call your post out for what it really is, a bunch of garbage.
The part that is not truthful is the implication that Warren does not support gay rights because she didn't drop everything and make a statement according to YOUR time preference. It's not even about real outrage, it is because you and your cohorts are so pissed that people are questioning Hillary Clinton's policy positions. Really how dare we? So, please continue to push your fake outrage because you only shoot yourself in the foot by doing so.
William769
(55,148 posts)It is my brothers & sisters that are being disparaged here & plenty of people are speaking out. At Least I know you think that's garbage now. I for one do not.
And I will hold anyone's feet to the fire that stays quiet on the subject.
And yes I am questioning her for staying quiet. You may not like it and you will stomp your feet but that will not stop me.
Welcome to push back. No free passes here.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)So when she does speak up do you sit there and scream it took her X number of days? Or to you take her at her word? I'm curious whether you will do the charitable thing and give her credit when she does voice her opposition.
Also besides Warren who else are you supposedly holding their feet to the fire?
William769
(55,148 posts)For someone who is supposed to be the champion of the Liberal left, not speaking out immediately is bad policy, actually it's vary bad policy.
Because of the push back in the last couple of days we have already got the Governor on the defense to get the law clarified.
Unfortunately Senator Warren was part part of this.
So I would go back to my original question that you say is nasty, what has she said.
We are speaking of the civil rights movement of this century (2000).
And you are giving me crap for doing this? That says a lot about you.
Have a nice day.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Have a nice day
William769
(55,148 posts)You have a nice day also.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)William769
(55,148 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Or at least until the filing deadline, if it turns out she doesn't file.
As has been noted on several other issues, Senator Warren, while certainly in agreement with other Democrats on most issues, prefers to stay laser focused on economic injustice, and not have to spend her time doing pressers on each and every issue that comes up.
William769
(55,148 posts)Gotcha. That is so yesterdays news.
2banon
(7,321 posts)William769
(55,148 posts)Sorry to take away your gotcha moment.
2banon
(7,321 posts)have mentioned it in your op, since you're raising the question and trying to trounce /shame Warren supporters.
William769
(55,148 posts)They seem to be doing just fine on their own.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)William769
(55,148 posts)Deflection is not going to work.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)William769
(55,148 posts)I take that back it's been answered, she said nothing but thank's for playing.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)I don't take Tylenol simply because they bashed Bayer Aspirin in their ad campaign.
If their product was so good, as good as they claim, then they wouldn't have to resort to bashing the other product.
The same is true in politics.
If your candidate isn't good enough to brag about their qualities and convince me to vote for them, without bashing and trashing the other candidates, then your candidate isn't nearly as good as you claim.
Trash talk is cheap.
William769
(55,148 posts)You are going to vote for who you wish to.
I asked a simple question that no one could answer but do see a lot of deflection including your post.
If people can't answer the question they should just say so.
These are my civil right and the civil rights of my brothers & sisters civil rights at stake, but apparently that is to be pushed under the bus at this time. Well guess what? I'm not going to let that happen.
Gave a nice day.
BainsBane
(53,112 posts)Did you post the same thing in them? Because really, in light of all those threads your response here is ridiculous.
I think there is a serious problem with your assertion that asking a question on a politician's position on an issue amounts to bashing. I'm starting to understand why some people here are so disillusioned with Obama. If people responded in 2008 to questions about Obama's positions as they are doing in this thread about Warren, it is little wonder they knew so little about where he actually stoood. Projecting what one wants to believe onto a politician is sure to lead to disillusionment. Additionally, the idea that they can't be questioned is fundamentally antidemocratic.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Not many actually.
BainsBane
(53,112 posts)including some who insist he promised single payer.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Very revealing thread.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)William769
(55,148 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)William769
(55,148 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)Kick!
BainsBane
(53,112 posts)Some of the reactions in this thread might be funny if they didn't reveal such a stunning lack of awareness.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I just looked at where something like that would be posted first;
http://www.dailykos.com/news/Elizabeth%20Warren#
Got to looking and of all the sites to find this on, oh well news is news, people that ARE speaking out;
http://perezhilton.com/2015-03-27-indiana-lgbt-discrimination-law-celebrity-business-reactions-twitter-instagram#.VRhX0_nF8po
What is the deal with hollywood speaking out but silence by national politicians (except for HRC who has made comments)?
Martina Navratilova ✔ @Martina
Follow
Now in Indiana,thanks to Gov.Pence, we have freedom of religion,aka legalized homophobia, and no freedom from religion
8:12 AM - 27 Mar 2015
William769
(55,148 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Is a new term in my lexicon that will be used frequently from now on.
William769
(55,148 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)And then turn around and complain about critical thinking skills! I noticed it right away and a hat tip to you sir! Without you, ageis and sadly too few others...these topics wouldn't even be covered in GD! Thank you for making sure people are not allowed to ignore these issues! It is depressing to see so few topics on it in GD with all the members here.
Equal rights for all my friend.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)It seems like they're trying real damn hard. If she is anything near the asshole some of her Internet friends are, who wants her?
William769
(55,148 posts)But that was expected.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Does it mean she hates gays? Is that what you're trying to imply?
I don't follow this endless pro- and anti-Hillary stuff that closely. But this OP, and the performance of posters on this thread, just strikes me as as attempt to trash Warren. A lot of it is pretty low and ugly, particularly from someone who can't even vote in American elections.
William769
(55,148 posts)I Seemed to ruffled a lot of feathers. Sorry but no one is immune to scrutiny here. Hillary and her supporters can attest to that.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Women, racial/ethnic minorities, LGBT. A majority of Democrats would vote for her.
R B Garr
(17,009 posts)If only the Democrats were nicer to you, some of you might vote for them.
Uh huh.
BainsBane
(53,112 posts)But I find it interesting that you find a question about a politician's position on an issue to be so upsetting. Is it the fact it's about LGBT rights or that somewhere, someone might not automatically assume Warren is the messiah?
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)Oh wait, they're not. Must mean it's because Liz isn't running, oh wait, neither is Hilary either...neither has declared.
JackBeck
(12,359 posts)Last edited Mon Mar 30, 2015, 01:32 AM - Edit history (1)
JackBeck
(12,359 posts)what was the response from Senator Warren's staff when you called today?
JackBeck
(12,359 posts)What was their response?
JackBeck
(12,359 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)How dare you ask such a question of E Warren.
This thread demonstrates that DU's self proclaimed high priests of liberalism are not amused with your antics.
And they wonder how Obama "tricked them".
BainsBane
(53,112 posts)I just made a very similar comment about people's disillusionment with Obama. These cults of personality are not only inane, they are antidemocratic.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)probably supported like all of her backers by Karl Rove, The Family Research Council and ISIS. It's mind boggling that everyone cannot see this.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)I don't think she is anything like you have stated.
Though it would be nice if she had something to say about Indiana...
randome
(34,845 posts)Cool.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]